August 1, 2016

"As we have seen repeatedly in Clinton’s explanations of the email controversy, she relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions," Glenn Kessler says. "While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public — which was the point of Wallace’s question."

That is, Comey was saying: As long as he doesn't know that she knows what she's saying isn't true, he has "no evidence" that she's lying.

And, in Kessler's view, Hillary was lying when she said Comey said she told the truth.

But I want Kessler to do a fact check on whether Comey was lying when he said that there was "no evidence." Evidence is anything that gets you closer to knowing a fact in issue, and there is a basis to infer that Hillary knew what she was saying was false.

Otherwise, how does Kessler know that Hillary was lying when she said what she thought Comey said about her? Maybe she really believes it. Who can know?

78 comments:

The whole Fact Checking shtick is usually a way for lefties to say either that (a) those nasty Rethuglicans were lying; or (b) the latest Clinton whopper wasn't really all that bad.

That said sometimes a baldfaced lie is so bad that even the Fact Checkers have to take notice.

But as for me, a WaPo Fact Checker could tell me that sun really would come up in the East tomorrow morning, and I'd shine it on. Little boys playing with their poo poo in mud puddles. Nothing to see here, move on.

"Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it..." - George Costanza

The best liars are able to convince themselves that their own lies are true. While I'm uncertain how far Hillary has traveled down the path of self delusion, I don't doubt that given the sheer amount of falsehoods the Clinton's have told over the years it has probably become difficult to remember which is a lie and which is the truth. The only way to know would be "It is the truth if it could hurt us."

On one hand, it's important to uphold the vital fact that, yes, "to lie" is to knowingly tell a falsehood. This is what always rankled about the "Bush lied!" meme during his portion of the war in Iraq: I never saw anyone present evidence that he knowingly told a falsehood. On the contrary, the more I dug, the more evidence I saw that it was Joe Wilson who was peddling known falsehoods, which made it into intelligence reports that President Bush relied on.

On the other hand, worrying overmuch about whether Hillary Clinton literally lied in this instance misses a different important legal point, which is that knowledge is not a precondition to guilt of gross negligence. Those of us who say Comey subverted the rule of law mean, specifically, that when he says Clinton was "extremely careless," he's simply saying "grossly negligent" in other words, and to fail to press charges of gross negligence is... well... I'd say gross negligence.

So in my mind, it's a twofer: I'm satisfied Clinton is lying (because I accept the evidence that she's a pathological liar) AND she's grossly negligent. The fact that she isn't behind bars, let alone is a credible candidate for President of the United States, really does sum up the cancer of the body politic we suffer from.

I watched the interview, and what incensed me more than Hillary saying Comey had called her truthful was when she blamed the people who emailed her for the classified material on her server. It was subtle, but she did it more than once.

I used to think she was just a pathological liar. Now I'm starting to think she's a delusional psychotic. Perhaps she should be required to undergo a psychological evaluation before continuing in the race.

But I want Kessler to do a fact check on whether Comey was lying when he said that there was "no evidence." Evidence is anything that gets you closer to knowing a fact in issue, and there is a basis to infer that Hillary knew what she was saying was false. Otherwise, how does Kessler know that Hillary was lying when she said what she thought Comey said about her? Maybe she really believes it. Who can know?

You should be a professor of epistemo-logical philosophy.

(I inserted the hyphen so that your spell checker will stop "correcting" the word to entomological.)

That is, Comey was saying: As long as he doesn't know that she knows what she's saying isn't true, he has "no evidence" that she's lying.

Or Comey meant that Clinton was perfectly forthright and candid in her FBI interview, acknowledging that she had sent and received classified email on unauthorized, unsecured devices, and therefore did not lie to the FBI.

Julian Assange: So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.

@AA: "But I want Kessler to do a fact check on whether Comey was lying when he said that there was "no evidence."" Yeah, you want. What "facts" do you propose he uses? That transcript of the FBI interview, for example. Sorry. Doesn't exist. Interviews with agents? Sorry, they had to sign non-disclosure statements. And so on.

@OriginalMike: "what incensed me more than Hillary saying Comey had called her truthful was when she blamed the people who emailed her for the classified material on her server. It was subtle, but she did it more than once." It's not blame, or throwing people under the bus, she's putting people on notice: protect me, or else. Prez Hill might go after snitches. (Not that it makes any real difference at this point, of course.)

Worse was the way she so elegantly refers to the Benghazi Moms as liars for saying that they heard her tell them "it was all because of a disgusting video" as the caskets processed in front of them. Pure evil

A recording of the interview would have been Hillary repeating, "I'm sorry, I can't recall." over and over.Before agreeing to an interview, Hillary's lawyers would certainly have insisted that no such tape or transcript would exist.

It is much more effective to show someone lied rather than merely assert it. In this case doubly so since it has driven so many Hillary shills to claim she didn't lie when the proof is right in front of everyone.

Blogger tim in vermont said...Traditional Republicans will vote for Clinton but will not tell anyone their true intentions including pollsters

This is why trump has gained so much traction and why NeverTump, the media, and Democrats are so confused.

For as long as I can remember, the media has been playing this game where they pretend they don't understand what the Republican just told them. The Democrats gleefully play along. This year, it's no coincidence that NeverTrump, made up mostly of Republicans in the media, are also playing along.

I second Bob Ellison on ignoring the WAPO Fact Checker. Just because they got this one right doesn't mean they deserve any credit which ignores their past misdeeds. My concern is that none of the commenters notes how Chris Wallace sold out to Hillary in order to land the interview. His whole purpose for being there is to hold her feet to the fire in order that we, the viewers, get the truth. How many hours did it take Wallace to work out the Kabuki script he used to allow her to dance through the tulips on this black and white issue? Disgraceful. I give him four yellow-bellies.

Hillary lied to the FBI and lied to Congress. But Unknown does not care, because Unknown thinks that Hillary would never lie to her. She should read Christopher Hitchen's No One Left to Lie To for a left of center take on the Clintons.

So Trump mad an accurate observation about Islam and its subjugation of women and he gets excoriated for disrespecting the family of a fallen soldier, Hillary calls another's mother a liar, and "crickets..."

I have two daughters and Hillary will NEVER be a role model for them. Instead she is a cautionary tale of what toxic personal ambition, lack of values and immorality can do to a person. She is Dorian Gray in person. Willing to say anything and do anything to become President.

My daughters are ten times the women Hillary, or Chelsea, will ever be. Shame on Hillary and shame on the half the country willing to overlook her blatant lies. There was a time in my life where someone like her would have been humiliated for her shamelessness.

Now she is looking to throw her own team under the bus. The team that she left no recourse but to contact her in an insecure manner. How can her bad choices be their fault? If Hillary had used the State Dept secure systems this self-created crisis wold not have happened.

Do we really want a President than can likely be blackmailed by whatever her own carelessness has exposed? This is why we need leaders with character beyond reproach. Hillary fails this character test and is completely unfit to serve.

You would think, with her famous experience and judgement, that she would recognize classified material when she saw it, with even the (C) in the margins as a hint, but our Hillary? Not too bright. Stupid is as stupid does.

I think the absurdity is that she seems to think that the American people are stupid and ignorant. No one was surprised when those documents ultimately got classified. Or, shouldn't have been surprised. They were the types of documents that routinely get classified. Or, were already classified. They just mostly hadn't gotten classified yet, because the information was real time, or close to it, and the classification process hadn't caught up with it yet. The NDA that the all, including Crooked Hillary, had to sign should have helped. It didn't. The big problem was most likely that she was the person in the State Department whose authority controlled the classification of anything that originated in her department. She was one of 4 or 5 original classifiers in the federal govt. if she had formally declared that anything sent to her at her private server was not classified, she might have been ok. She apparently didn't, and should have been expecting documents classified under her authority under guidelines she could have changed to ultimately be classified. And ditto for all the underlings emailing her documents that would ultimately be classified under those guidelines.

Worse was the way she so elegantly refers to the Benghazi Moms as liars for saying that they heard her tell them "it was all because of a disgusting video" as the caskets processed in front of them. Pure evil

Who to believe. Hillary, or my lying eyes (money shot starting at the 6 minute mark).

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?COMEY: That’s not true.

If someone copied material into her email that was marked classified but didn't copy the marking in a way that Hillary would have known the material was marked classified, Comey would be correct to say that's not true, but it would be wrong to infer that Hillary lied, or that Comey had said that she had lied.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” Was that true?COMEY: There was classified material emailed.

If someone emailed classified material and Hillary replied to the email or forwarded it to someone else, and the text of the first email appeared below the reply or forwarding message that Hillary added, Comey would be correct to say there was classified material emailed, but Hillary would not be lying to say that she didn't email it.

It's been reported that 113 of 33,000 emails were afoul of Comey's standards - that still means that Hillary was 99.66% correct in her statements. The number marked classified has been reported as 3, or 99.99% correct.

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

"If someone emailed classified material and Hillary replied to the email or forwarded it to someone else,"

This is why you need to use an official, secure email system. If you require, or permit, people to send you potentially classified information (or information that may be subsequently classified, as much of the comms to/from the Secretary of State(!)) and forward it, etc., it is gross negligence to let this data be sent to or archived on an unofficial, insecure system. Even non-classified communications are not appropriately exposed on private systems.

This is why private firms under regulatory controls permit NO company business over private email, regardless of sensitivity of the communication. I have seen senior executives terminated for violations of this and similar protocols.

Left Bank of the Charles said...It's been reported that 113 of 33,000 emails were afoul of Comey's standards

If true this means 113 of Hillary's emails violate Hillary's standards. Many, many more of her emails violate classified information standards (there is no "Comey" standard). It's hard to tell if this person doesn't know enough to understand the difference or if he knows but is repeating the line most favorable to Clinton even though he knows it's wrong.

Talking Crooked Hillary and her email - apparently during her four years as Sec of State, neither she, nor her personal aide, Huma, ever took a security class or briefing, and two other close aides only took one, despite being a yearly requirement. This is the woman who was one of 4 or 5 original classifiers in the federal govt at the time. No wonder she was able to say with a straight face what she did about not essentially realizing that a number of emails on her private, insecure, server would be ultimately classified. Call it willful ignorance (as well as feeling supremely entitled). But wouldn't such willful ignorance, in the face of yearly requirements for security briefings and classes, constitute gross negligence, all on its own? More to me the extreme indifference you find in depraved heart/mind second degree murder charges and definitions, where the negligence is so gross and egregious that it constitutes the required general intent.